Apple ITC win leads to HTC One X, Evo 4G LTE import holdup

Customs officials are checking devices for compliance with an exclusion order.

HTC, AT&T, and Sprint are all feeling the effects of Apple's import ban win against HTC last December. The One X and Evo 4G LTE, both Android handsets, may be delayed from their May 18 launch date as the devices are currently being held by US Customs officials. Officials are examining both devices for compliance with an International Trade Commission ban on the import of HTC devices violating an Apple patent.

Apple's "thermonuclear" assault on Android began in earnest in 2010 when Apple sued HTC for patent infringement. Along with a federal lawsuit, Apple also filed a parallel complaint with the ITC seeking the import ban. Filing ITC complaints has become a common tactic in patent infringement disputes, as the ITC tends to rule on cases quicker than federal district courts. US import bans are also potentially quite effective since nearly all smartphones and other electronic devices are produced in China.

Though Apple originally claimed HTC infringed 10 of its patents, the ITC ultimately ruled that HTC's Android smartphones ran afoul of a patent related to a feature Apple first debuted on the Mac as "Data Detectors." This is the technology that automatically recognizes certain data types—such as addresses or phone numbers— and turns them into clickable links that perform a map lookup or dial a phone number.

HTC claimed at the time that the feature was a "small UI experience" and that the feature would be removed from future devices. HTC contends that it is in compliance with the exclusion order, and has indeed removed the feature from its latest devices.

"The US availability of the HTC One X and HTC EVO 4G LTE has been delayed due to a standard US Customs review of shipments that is required after an ITC exclusion order," HTC said in a statement to The Verge. "We believe we are in compliance with the ruling and HTC is working closely with Customs to secure approval."

HTC hasn't taken Apple's legal assaults lying down, however. Though the ITC dismissed the company's first ITC counterclaim against Apple, it filed another one in 2011 using five patents that Google gave to the company to aid its legal battle with Apple. Apple is seeking to have those patents excluded from HTC's second complaint, however, arguing that Google, and not HTC, has the standing to assert those patents in an ITC complaint.

As we wrote in 2010, Apple's proxy fight with Android—targeting handset makers like HTC, Samsung, and Motorola—could last for years. Meanwhile, HTC's latest devices are sitting in a Customs warehouse while officials decide if AT&T and Sprint customers will get to use them or not.

I find it amusing that Apple's great "random string of digits is a phone number" is considered IP worthy of copying, much less banning an entire product line. My iphone thinks lots of things are phone numbers, even number's with decimal points and leading zeros.

Then again, even Joshua knew that thermonuclear war didn't make sense. Maybe Google/HTC should put a free copy of Chess in Android to send their own message.

I find it amusing that Apple's great "random string of digits is a phone number" is considered IP worthy of copying, much less banning an entire product line. My iphone thinks lots of things are phone numbers, even number's with decimal points and leading zeros.

Then again, even Joshua knew that thermonuclear war didn't make sense. Maybe Google/HTC should put a free copy of Chess in Android to send their own message.

Because all of those are valid representations of a phone number. Apples detection is doing what it should.

I do find it funny and awesome however that Apple has a patent on RegEx's that contextually provide actions on those matches.

Not trying to troll but even my old Treo650 had this feature. Did Palm just not patent it or is it something Apple bought? Is it the particular implementation? Just curious really. The whole thing leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I can see this being an issue if they stole Apple's code to do it but coding their own version of a common feature seems like the sort of thing you shouldn't be able to halt shipments over.

I find it amusing that Apple's great "random string of digits is a phone number" is considered IP worthy of copying, much less banning an entire product line. My iphone thinks lots of things are phone numbers, even number's with decimal points and leading zeros.

Then again, even Joshua knew that thermonuclear war didn't make sense. Maybe Google/HTC should put a free copy of Chess in Android to send their own message.

Not Chess, Tic Tac Toe. The only way to win the patent war, is not to play.

I find it amusing that Apple's great "random string of digits is a phone number" is considered IP worthy of copying, much less banning an entire product line. My iphone thinks lots of things are phone numbers, even number's with decimal points and leading zeros.

Then again, even Joshua knew that thermonuclear war didn't make sense. Maybe Google/HTC should put a free copy of Chess in Android to send their own message.

Not Chess, Tic Tac Toe. The only way to win the patent war, is not to play.

Untrue. Both Tic Tac Toe and patent wars can be won if your opponent makes a mistake.

Not trying to troll but even my old Treo650 had this feature. Did Palm just not patent it or is it something Apple bought? Is it the particular implementation? Just curious really.

The patent in question is US Patent 5,946,647, "System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data." The patent was applied for by Apple engineers in 1996 and awarded in 1999. It relates to a feature that first appeared in Mac OS 8. Applications could, using a system-wide service, automatically detect certain types of data, such as dates, names, addresses, and more. A contextual "tool-tip" would pop up if the mouse was hovered over any recognized data, offering certain actions that could be performed with it. For instance, Mac OS might offer to create a calendar reminder using a date. The feature was lost in the transition to Mac OS X, but later reappeared in Mac OS X 10.5 in certain applications, such as Mail, iChat, and Terminal. It's also used throughout iOS, turning phone numbers and addresses into clickable links that can either dial a number or perform a Maps search (among other things).

Quote:

The whole thing leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I can see this being an issue if they stole Apple's code to do it but coding their own version of a common feature seems like the sort of thing you shouldn't be able to halt shipments over.

That's certainly the main thrust of the argument against software patents. Patents aren't supposed apply to ideas in general, only to physical embodiments of an idea. Like, I couldn't patent a car, but I could patent a particular way to build one, for instance. The Federal Circuit has, since 1992, allowed patents to apply to "non-physical" embodiments for things such as business processes and software. And while Apple's patent can't apply to the idea of "data detectors" in general, it's possible that their patented claims cover the process of doing it well enough that making another implementation would be difficult without adding some significant original improvement.

According to the ITC, the Android method of doing the same feature violated some claims of Apple's patent. It's important to note that HTC removed the feature to work around the exclusion order, but if other Android devices have the same feature, Apple could have similar exclusion orders applied. So Google either needs to come up with a novel implementation or remove the feature from Android entirely to protect other handset makers.

I'm glad my wife and daughter got their HTC One X devices from AT&T on the day they first went on sale - May 6th. I imagine once AT&T runs low, it might take some time to fill the channel back up on these.

Isn't this just patenting regular expressions? How is that even possible? And isn't there significant prior art?

No, it's not just a patent on regular expressions. You're right when you recognize that using regex isn't patentable, but the patent notes the the "analyzer server" part of the system "uses a pattern analysis unit, such as a parser or fast string search function." That could be regex—that's the most commonly used pattern matching system in use on computers—but it doesn't have to be per se.

The abstract is a generalization—patent claims themselves are what matter in a legal sense—but the abstract for this patent I think gives a pretty good explanation of the patented system:

US Patent 5,946,647 wrote:

A system and method causes a computer to detect and perform actions on structures identified in computer data. The system provides an analyzer server, an application program interface, a user interface and an action processor. The analyzer server receives from an application running concurrently data having recognizable structures, uses a pattern analysis unit, such as a parser or fast string search function, to detect structures in the data, and links relevant actions to the detected structures. The application program interface communicates with the application running concurrently, and transmits relevant information to the user interface. Thus, the user interface can present and enable selection of the detected structures, and upon selection of a detected structure, present the linked candidate actions. Upon selection of an action, the action processor performs the action on the detected structure.

Apple's system requires 4 parts: analyzer server, API, UI, and action processor. If the version in Android worked in some way that was materially different than Apple's system, it would not infringe on the patent and qualify for a Section 337 import ban. You can be sure that HTC submitted any prior art evidence that might show that Apple's system isn't worthy of patent protection, but in this case the ITC ruled that the claims were valid and infringed.

Patents that have stood up to judicial scrutiny also enjoy a presumed validity, so it would take a separate USPTO complaint or federal lawsuit to have the patent ruled invalid. In the meantime, Apple can use this patent against any Android or other smartphone device using a "data detector" like system that is materially similar to its patented system. If a smartphone has clickable phone numbers that dial the number when clicked, for instance, it's possible that the device infringes Apple's patent.

Not trying to troll but even my old Treo650 had this feature. Did Palm just not patent it or is it something Apple bought? Is it the particular implementation? Just curious really.

The patent in question is US Patent 5,946,647, "System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data." The patent was applied for by Apple engineers in 1996 and awarded in 1999. It relates to a feature that first appeared in Mac OS 8. Applications could, using a system-wide service, automatically detect certain types of data, such as dates, names, addresses, and more. A contextual "tool-tip" would pop up if the mouse was hovered over any recognized data, offering certain actions that could be performed with it. For instance, Mac OS might offer to create a calendar reminder using a date. The feature was lost in the transition to Mac OS X, but later reappeared in Mac OS X 10.5 in certain applications, such as Mail, iChat, and Terminal. It's also used throughout iOS, turning phone numbers and addresses into clickable links that can either dial a number or perform a Maps search (among other things).

I'm pretty sure in this case the patent's applicability hinged on presenting the context menu. Plenty of other people have automatically recognized phone numbers, say, but if they only provide a link you can click to call the number then it's not covered by this.

You kind of said this but I wanted to make it more explicit since it addresses many of the comments.

"...it would take a separate USPTO complaint or federal lawsuit to have the patent ruled invalid. In the meantime, Apple can use this patent against any Android or other smartphone device using a "data detector" like system that is materially similar to its patented system..."

Pretty sure that's been the name of the game from the beginning. Use existing patents to prevent competition, because all the time it takes the judicial time is enough time for Apple to make market share gains.

And from the flipside, I think Samsung recognized that the judicial system could not kill their tablet sales altogether even if they had to redesign the Galaxy Tab 10.1 for looking too much like an iPad.

Not trying to troll but even my old Treo650 had this feature. Did Palm just not patent it or is it something Apple bought? Is it the particular implementation? Just curious really.

The patent in question is US Patent 5,946,647, "System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data." The patent was applied for by Apple engineers in 1996 and awarded in 1999. It relates to a feature that first appeared in Mac OS 8. Applications could, using a system-wide service, automatically detect certain types of data, such as dates, names, addresses, and more. A contextual "tool-tip" would pop up if the mouse was hovered over any recognized data, offering certain actions that could be performed with it. For instance, Mac OS might offer to create a calendar reminder using a date. The feature was lost in the transition to Mac OS X, but later reappeared in Mac OS X 10.5 in certain applications, such as Mail, iChat, and Terminal. It's also used throughout iOS, turning phone numbers and addresses into clickable links that can either dial a number or perform a Maps search (among other things).

I'm pretty sure in this case the patent's applicability hinged on presenting the context menu. Plenty of other people have automatically recognized phone numbers, say, but if they only provide a link you can click to call the number then it's not covered by this.

You kind of said this but I wanted to make it more explicit since it addresses many of the comments.

It seem like it's a bit much to say that the decision to put something in a menu should make it protected. If the underlying technology isn't novel, how does it being in a context menu grant it patent protection? Does this somehow extend to an existing GUI patent?

Odd that they've targeted the EVO 4G LTE and the One X, but not the One S or One V which run practically identical software. And just before the launch date too. Smells like extortion to cause maximum disruption to HTC to me.

How are browser plugins not a violation of this absurdly broad patent? The patent says the menu appears when you hover which implies user action is required. Isn't Skype click-to-call a violation, since it parses the page for, phone numbers and offers contextual actions?

Not trying to troll but even my old Treo650 had this feature. Did Palm just not patent it or is it something Apple bought? Is it the particular implementation? Just curious really.

The patent in question is US Patent 5,946,647, "System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data." The patent was applied for by Apple engineers in 1996 and awarded in 1999. It relates to a feature that first appeared in Mac OS 8. Applications could, using a system-wide service, automatically detect certain types of data, such as dates, names, addresses, and more. A contextual "tool-tip" would pop up if the mouse was hovered over any recognized data, offering certain actions that could be performed with it. For instance, Mac OS might offer to create a calendar reminder using a date. The feature was lost in the transition to Mac OS X, but later reappeared in Mac OS X 10.5 in certain applications, such as Mail, iChat, and Terminal. It's also used throughout iOS, turning phone numbers and addresses into clickable links that can either dial a number or perform a Maps search (among other things).

I'm pretty sure in this case the patent's applicability hinged on presenting the context menu. Plenty of other people have automatically recognized phone numbers, say, but if they only provide a link you can click to call the number then it's not covered by this.

You kind of said this but I wanted to make it more explicit since it addresses many of the comments.

It seem like it's a bit much to say that the decision to put something in a menu should make it protected. If the underlying technology isn't novel, how does it being in a context menu grant it patent protection? Does this somehow extend to an existing GUI patent?

Only because patents on software processes are nonsensical and unreasonable.

This probably will affect the recently announced Incredible 4G on Verizon too. It was supposed to be released "in the coming weeks" a couple weeks ago. I was looking forward to checking that phone out, but I guess now I'll have to wait.

But if Apple filed for patent in 1996 how come my Siemens S4 handset (manufactured in 1995) had that feature?

Did the feature work as described in Apple's patent claims? That's the real test for prior art. I'm not 100% sure exactly how the handset operated, but I have a hard time believing it worked anything remotely like Apple's system.

But if Apple filed for patent in 1996 how come my Siemens S4 handset (manufactured in 1995) had that feature?

Did the feature work as described in Apple's patent claims? That's the real test for prior art. I'm not 100% sure exactly how the handset operated, but I have a hard time believing it worked anything remotely like Apple's system.

I still maintain that the underlying idea doesn't become magically original because you put it in a menu in a GUI operating system. It's not just prior art, doesn't an invention has to be novel to someone with "an ordinary level of skill" in the field? This seems to block the expression of a straightforward idea in the straightforward way.

Have you read the patent and concluded otherwise? Because it's not that specific or original. It's just filed for.

"...it would take a separate USPTO complaint or federal lawsuit to have the patent ruled invalid. In the meantime, Apple can use this patent against any Android or other smartphone device using a "data detector" like system that is materially similar to its patented system..."

Pretty sure that's been the name of the game from the beginning. Use existing patents to prevent competition, because all the time it takes the judicial time is enough time for Apple to make market share gains.

I'm not sure this is an entirely fair characterization. Apple is not trying to prevent other vendors from making and selling smartphones, they are trying to prevent vendors from making or selling smartphones that are materially "the same" as an iPhone.

This kind of protection was precisely why intellectual property rights were established in the first place—for patents, inventors get a 17 year limited exclusivity on their inventions, in exchange for a detailed explanation of the technology entering the public domain when the patent expires. Effectively, if you take all the time, effort, and money to invent something, and document it for the world to see, you get a limited time to earn back compensation (in licensing revenue, product profits, etc) for that effort. In exchange, we get a continually improved database of technological innovations to draw new inspiration from.

I think most people see that arrangement as a fair exchange in general. There are specifics about the arrangement that may need to be changed, such as the 17-year term, or whether novel software features deserve patent protection. Maybe software patents would be less problematic if patents were limited to 5 or 10 years instead of almost 20, for instance. It's clear everyone agrees the system as currently implemented could use improvement, but until there is a consensus on just how to improve it, companies are forced to either work within the existing framework or get run over roughshod by competitors that do.

But if Apple filed for patent in 1996 how come my Siemens S4 handset (manufactured in 1995) had that feature?

Because it didn't.

Tell me how you can:

A. Present a contextual menu (a requirement of this patent) on a screen with only three horizontal lines of text.B. Parse "computer-generated data" on a device that couldn't access computer generated data.

The Siemens S4 was introduced in 1994, had no Internet accessibility, no email application, no MMS capability, and didn't even feature T9 texting. It was developed and sold by a German corporation and only offered for sale in Europe, Asia and Canada and likely couldn't have been offered as prior art for a US patent.

"...it would take a separate USPTO complaint or federal lawsuit to have the patent ruled invalid. In the meantime, Apple can use this patent against any Android or other smartphone device using a "data detector" like system that is materially similar to its patented system..."

Pretty sure that's been the name of the game from the beginning. Use existing patents to prevent competition, because all the time it takes the judicial time is enough time for Apple to make market share gains.

I'm not sure this is an entirely fair characterization. Apple is not trying to prevent other vendors from making and selling smartphones, they are trying to prevent vendors from making or selling smartphones that are materially "the same" as an iPhone.

This kind of protection was precisely why intellectual property rights were established in the first place—for patents, inventors get a 17 year limited exclusivity on their inventions, in exchange for a detailed explanation of the technology entering the public domain when the patent expires. Effectively, if you take all the time, effort, and money to invent something, and document it for the world to see, you get a limited time to earn back compensation (in licensing revenue, product profits, etc) for that effort. In exchange, we get a continually improved database of technological innovations to draw new inspiration from.

I think most people see that arrangement as a fair exchange in general. There are specifics about the arrangement that may need to be changed, such as the 17-year term, or whether novel software features deserve patent protection. Maybe software patents would be less problematic if patents were limited to 5 or 10 years instead of almost 20, for instance. It's clear everyone agrees the system as currently implemented could use improvement, but until there is a consensus on just how to improve it, companies are forced to either work within the existing framework or get run over roughshod by competitors that do.

The problem is that what you propose implies that the iPhone came out of nowhere. The iPhone was a natural evolution of PDAs once ARM chips got powerful enough to power a battery to offer a rich OpenGL experience on a phone.

I don't think that grants them protection for every smartphone that comes after the iPhone, the same way the prior smartphone doesn't get patent protection for every feature of the iPhone. The problem is Apple thinks the iPhone is not a commodity and it is. I think it's a stretch to let smartphones converge to the power of running a powerful OS then claim every OS feature you invented in MacOS now entitles you to the required functionality in a everyone's phones. Just because phones and computers run the same OSes doesn't mean that what's obvious and novel are the same thing in both use cases.

Let's be honest, in 1999, having contextual click-to-call might have been interesting in a computer, but not novel, especially when you read the broad patent. In smartphones, the desirability of this feature doesn't take a stretch by any means. Just because someone gave you a patent doesn't mean you deserve it or that you should use it to prevent people from creating things are obvious to the use case they're trying to offer.

When you read the patent, do you really think this is novel invention worthy of a 17-year exclusivity?

You say maybe the terms are too long? But how long should pattern matching for data in an OS hold people back?

Correction. (to avoid many of the trolls). Apple's patent does not contextually turn things into links. It provides a link to user selectable features. If it was a link, clicking a phone number would do one thing, dial the phone. Apple's patent allows the phone number to produce a selection box asking the user what they want to do. It is also important not that it can find simple relational formatted items (a phone number) but in unformatted documents it can pick out addresses, names, and more.

This may sound like a subtle difference vs simply running a contextual search based on relational formats. Point is, it does not use relational strings, and it does not simply create a "link", but a contextual menu related to the datatype detected allowing a user to make a CHOICE when clicking it. That is something that did not exist before apple patented it way back when.

Correction. (to avoid many of the trolls). Apple's patent does not contextually turn things into links. It provides a link to user selectable features. If it was a link, clicking a phone number would do one thing, dial the phone. Apple's patent allows the phone number to produce a selection box asking the user what they want to do. It is also important not that it can find simple relational formatted items (a phone number) but in unformatted documents it can pick out addresses, names, and more.

This may sound like a subtle difference vs simply running a contextual search based on relational formats. Point is, it does not use relational strings, and it does not simply create a "link", but a contextual menu related to the datatype detected allowing a user to make a CHOICE when clicking it. That is something that did not exist before apple patented it way back when.

Do you think this leap to provide a menu of actions instead of a link makes this novel and patent worthy when dealing with a GUI that presents things in windows and menus? When you need to present more options in a GUI... I'm pretty sure you put it in a menu...

But if Apple filed for patent in 1996 how come my Siemens S4 handset (manufactured in 1995) had that feature?

Did the feature work as described in Apple's patent claims? That's the real test for prior art. I'm not 100% sure exactly how the handset operated, but I have a hard time believing it worked anything remotely like Apple's system.

I still maintain that the underlying idea doesn't become magically original because you put it in a menu in a GUI operating system. It's not just prior art, doesn't an invention has to be novel to someone with "an ordinary level of skill" in the field? This seems to block the expression of a straightforward idea in the straightforward way.

Have you read the patent and concluded otherwise? Because it's not that specific or original. It's just filed for.

IDEAS cannot be patented, period, no matter how many times you keep saying it. METHODS are patented. Apple has a METHOD patent on a design for a system that parses text in an unformated document, looking for key items without resorting to relational search methods, and then identifies and links a contextual mwenu (not a simply link to an aciotn, but a user's choice of action), and all using very detailed processes in a patent that's practically a book unto itself in descriptiveness.

Anyone could do the same thing, provided they simply use a different method to get the same results from the same imput. A court ruled the method used by HTC was not unique and that apple;s method was not novel, and that no prior art was so presented, therefor upholding the patent. This was actually a VERY stonrg and very detailed, and very specific patent. If you can understand the jargon, its actually an amazing read. to think this was developed in 1996, when most of the web was barely a dream.

"...it would take a separate USPTO complaint or federal lawsuit to have the patent ruled invalid. In the meantime, Apple can use this patent against any Android or other smartphone device using a "data detector" like system that is materially similar to its patented system..."

Pretty sure that's been the name of the game from the beginning. Use existing patents to prevent competition, because all the time it takes the judicial time is enough time for Apple to make market share gains.

And from the flipside, I think Samsung recognized that the judicial system could not kill their tablet sales altogether even if they had to redesign the Galaxy Tab 10.1 for looking too much like an iPad.

Note: patents are not ideas. Anyone can make a data detector for android. They just can't make one that is "materially the same" as the METHOD used by Apple in their patent. That's the distinction. HTC merely has to change their code to do the same thing a vastly different way and it's OK by Apple. Problem for HTC is that any other way is eaither not a very good way, less efficint, extremely complex to code, or does not provide significant advantage to the user vs copy/paste would.

Not trying to troll but even my old Treo650 had this feature. Did Palm just not patent it or is it something Apple bought? Is it the particular implementation? Just curious really. The whole thing leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I can see this being an issue if they stole Apple's code to do it but coding their own version of a common feature seems like the sort of thing you shouldn't be able to halt shipments over.

Nope. Palm OS could hotlink certain items based on relational search, but clicking an address always did a specific thing, clicking a phone number always did a specific thing. And, they could only be found if appropriately formatted. Apple provides not just a much more intelligent serarch system (based on an AI, not relational matching), but it provides a contextual menu of options associated with the object, not just a link. Thta makes their METHOD materially different and thus patentable.

Also, This is from a design released and patented in 1996 that had roots in Os 7 development years before, before the Treo existed. Before PALM existed.

patents are not ideas, get that through your head, and also understand that the "abstract" and "summary" parts of a patent are completely irrelevent, ONLY the claims section matters at all in court, as it is the definition of the process/method used in the patent.

Isn't this just patenting regular expressions? How is that even possible? And isn't there significant prior art?

its specifically not using relational expressions or a format database. It's not about identifying the item, its about applying a contextually based list of options a user can select upon clicking it, as opposed to a simple hyperlink which only does 1 thing. And no, there was no prior at to this in 1996 (let alone the years of R&D apple had well documented before they even filed for the patent)

But if Apple filed for patent in 1996 how come my Siemens S4 handset (manufactured in 1995) had that feature?

Did the feature work as described in Apple's patent claims? That's the real test for prior art. I'm not 100% sure exactly how the handset operated, but I have a hard time believing it worked anything remotely like Apple's system.

I still maintain that the underlying idea doesn't become magically original because you put it in a menu in a GUI operating system. It's not just prior art, doesn't an invention has to be novel to someone with "an ordinary level of skill" in the field? This seems to block the expression of a straightforward idea in the straightforward way.

Have you read the patent and concluded otherwise? Because it's not that specific or original. It's just filed for.

IDEAS cannot be patented, period, no matter how many times you keep saying it. METHODS are patented. Apple has a METHOD patent on a design for a system that parses text in an unformated document, looking for key items without resorting to relational search methods, and then identifies and links a contextual mwenu (not a simply link to an aciotn, but a user's choice of action), and all using very detailed processes in a patent that's practically a book unto itself in descriptiveness.

Anyone could do the same thing, provided they simply use a different method to get the same results from the same imput. A court ruled the method used by HTC was not unique and that apple;s method was not novel, and that no prior art was so presented, therefor upholding the patent. This was actually a VERY stonrg and very detailed, and very specific patent. If you can understand the jargon, its actually an amazing read. to think this was developed in 1996, when most of the web was barely a dream.

It's not really that jargony. Deciding to parse text and saying that you'll do so with a string search library shouldn't prevent anyone else that wants to parse text using a string search library. Sure there are specifics in the claim, that the action cues a sound, but it still doesn't feel like this patent is novel. I.E. if you asked a bunch of computer scientists to come up with a way to provide this functionality I don't think a context-menu that offers actions wouldn't come out. Neither would parsing text using a string search library.

I feel like patents like this encourage people to patent everything just in case anyone else wants to compete in the same space, because the implication is as long as no one has filed for this patent you get the rights, regardless of if the patent has merit that makes it worth closing the competitive landscape to others. You shouldn't just get a government granted monopoly because you were the first to tell the government about it. Patents are government granted monopolies, and they're supposed to serve inventors that come up with something original.

A. Present a contextual menu (a requirement of this patent) on a screen with only three horizontal lines of text.B. Parse "computer-generated data" on a device that couldn't access computer generated data.

The Siemens S4 was introduced in 1994, had no Internet accessibility, no MMS capability, and didn't even feature T9 texting. It was developed and sold by a German corporation and only offered for sale in Europe, Asia and Canada and likely couldn't have been offered as prior art for a US patent.

Edited to add: Actually, it appears that the S4 was introduced in 4Q 1996, not 1994. So it's a moot point all the way around since it arrived AFTER Apple filed their patent.

TBH I don't remember if it had the context menu (somehow I doubt it, cause of the screen), but still reckognised numbers and allowed you to call them.

Also from reading all comments it seems that context menu is a problem, which nullifies my argument.

But I still don't understand why shouldn't a prior art from Europe (which has pretty much all trade laws synced and signed with the US) be void in US but the other way around enforced by the US in Europe?

And, yes, I do agree that patent wars nowadays are killing all innovation, thank you apple for contributing to the cause.

EDIT: just saw your edit on the date, I found on German wiki that it was 1995, still not relevant either way

Isn't this just patenting regular expressions? How is that even possible? And isn't there significant prior art?

its specifically not using relational expressions or a format database. It's not about identifying the item, its about applying a contextually based list of options a user can select upon clicking it, as opposed to a simple hyperlink which only does 1 thing. And no, there was no prior at to this in 1996 (let alone the years of R&D apple had well documented before they even filed for the patent)

Prior art or not, Apple just took away my choices. Because of them, the market is less competitive. I hope they get hit hard in the ebook suit. I cant believe so many people support a company who cares nothing for them, who works against competition and to raise prices for the consumer, all so they can have 100's of billions MORE money. They are a parasite in the tech world and if they keep this up, we'll all be paying 300$ for a gig of RAM and 2000$ for last years PC models. Someone, the US government, needs to put them in their place as they once did MS.